pissontheashes asked: One more thing then, really a reiteration of my earlier questions: If there's crime, is there punishment? If not, what's the deterrent for immoral people? If there's punishment, what is the punishment? Who would decide what punishment fit which crime? Hell, without detectives how would we know for sure who committed the crime? Who would deal out the punishment once we figured it out? Yes, the law would be everyone's responsibility, but what happens to people who break the law? Specifically.
That’s a tricky situation, for sure. I assume you mean outside of someone caught in the act, of course (I catch you breaking into my house, I shoot you, I think we all agree that’s reasonable on some level). So, if someone is caught outside of the act? Well, if they choose to participate in a societal structure, they can agree upon their own punishments. However, for the people at large? Fair would be covering monetary costs. That taken, plus that lost due to it’s absence, doubled. However, for things that have no monetary value, such as murder, rape, etc? Personally, I think the victim or the next of kin is justified to execute them. That’s just something people have to work out on their own.
It’s absolutely not a perfect answer, but it’s certainly better than the prison system we have now, where government and private prisons profit off of crime. I mean they literally make money off of rapists and murderers. How messed up is that? Hell, if I get robbed, the government is also going to get a piece of the action. Pretty fucked up, in my opinion.
I’m suddenly obsessed with the idea of buying or building a swiveling gun mount that fits in the door hinges of my Jeep.
It’s not like I have a 240B laying around to mount on it, but just think. One on each side in the back and the passenger side in front, AR15 with a Beta mag on each one… I would definitely drive that for The Happening.
like this hahah
There are those belt-fed uppers. That would be a perfectly legitimate use of it.
Drum mag + belt-fed upper.
Smoke over the Cascades. The fire flared up again today, so there goes the air quality.
Oh shit, I forgot that was in your neck of the woods. You doing okay?
pissontheashes asked: You believe in crime but you can't have crime without laws, and laws are useless without people to enforcing them. You say that you don't want police and if a neo-nazi has a problem with you then that's just their issue, but it doesn't work that way. It would become your issue real fast. Same with my neighbor. If I went and beat the fuck out of them and there were no police what would happen to me? They'd get me back? What if I murdered them? Society would break down without law enforcement.
(con’t) My main question is what makes you think this would would be better without police and what would you think would happen if there were none tomorrow? If a person murdered you, what would you want to happen to them? What do you think would happen to them without police? If you were a hermit, nothing? If you weren’t and lived in a community do think you could rely on others in your community to take vengeance for you? What if you weren’t a bad person just kept to yourself. Are you okay to kill?
Valid questions. What it basically comes down to is this (and these aren’t my words, it’s a common adage of Anarchist principles): Anarchy doesn’t promise that no one will be robbed, raped, or murdered, but the notion of governments promises that at least a few people will be.
I’m not saying a policeless existence is some happy, happy, gumball land; I’m saying it’s better than having a bunch of jackboot thugs rolling around in military gear, terrorizing people up and down our streets. They rob, rape, and murder with impunity, facing zero consequences for their actions. Most believe themselves to be ‘above the law’. Surely the world would be better off without such people?
Also, I severely disagree with the notion that you can’t have law without law enforcement agents. Much like safety, law is everyone’s responsibility.